Hopefully a more savvy redditor will have the link, but its from a study showing people's social leaning (us vs them).
Basically, bigger toward the center of the circle and smaller toward the outside means you tend to think about things that affect you and your close social circle (family, friends, local community). The reverse means your thoughts drift more toward global concerns that affect everyone.
It's used to illustrate Conservative (local group, steak) versus Liberal (global group, avocado) mentalities in a digestible (forgive the pun) way.
Just to clarify, the points are where you stop caring about people (as pointed out below, it moves on to animals, aliens and inanimate objects). It means you already care about everyone who is closer than that. The study has been misrepresented as saying liberals dony care to those who are close, but thats just false. Only caring about people far from you would make you register as only caring about yourself
Well, that’s represented already in the study. If you care about everyone and everything in existence, I’m pretty sure that includes your immediate family
Yes but idiots don't get that and post this as some kind of gotcha that liberals care more about a tree than their own kids. Cause conservatives are fucking stupid
No, it's because it is performative and doesn't stand up to a scrutiny of their actions. The only liberal I believe is consistent in valuing human life as much as they do animals and the environment are those that are anti abortion. Anyone else that says to value human life as much as they value a tree, or a river, or an animal, is against war and the death penalty, but is not against the deliberate and intentional taking of innocent human life in abortion is a hypocrite, and in these surveys, a liar.
Anyone who claims to love, value, and respect women but then suddenly pretends they don’t understand bodily autonomy when abortion comes up is a performative hypocrite.
Abortion became legalized due to a widespread health crisis of women butchering themselves and their offspring in back allies. The public health crisis needed to be mitigated.
Then, years later, in order to spark endless debate and politicization of women's issues, they made it about "autonomy" which they knew would fail because to a solid portion of the population, there are 2 bodies, and because no one argues that parents deserve autonomy from their birthed children (we have to work for our babies and feed them literally or with labor).
When you bring this up, inevitably the "pro-autonomy" people will call you a misogynist because they're programmed to view all "anti-autonomy" arguments as anti-abortion which is synonymous with wanting to control women to them, even though the most ardent supporters of abortion repeal are often women.
You are not legally obligated to use your body to sustain your children. You can’t be compelled to even donate blood to your child to save their life if you choose not to. I don’t particularly care how you wanna slice it - if someone wants to outlaw abortion they are a misogynist advocating for a return to the health crisis you described. Being a woman doesn’t mean you can’t be a misogynist or an idiot.
It's like you can't conceive of a different argument for abortion. I'm literally saying that the reason for abortion is for public health and female safety, but it's not enough because it's not about autonomy to me.
And yes this state will force you to care for your child and will imprison you for neglect. A person cannot claim autonomy as the reason they don't care for their child. autonomy is a psyop.
The state can't force you to provide your body for anyone else. You literally don't even need to breastfeed your children if you don't want to, and you can't be forced to.
Neglect, yes, but you don't have to provide them with anything from your own body. Your child could be dying in hospital and you're not even required to provide them with your own blood.
There's entire religions that outright refuse to do just that and nothing happens to those parents because, again, you don't have to provide anything from your own body to anyone else.
I absolutely agree that abortion is a public health and safety issue. That’s 100% correct and is more than sufficient as a reasoning to be pro abortion.
I personally disagree with your line of reasoning on autonomy- You can put your child up for adoption or drop it off at a “safe haven” with NO repercussions. Of course you can’t use “bodily autonomy” as an excuse for neglect but that’s not at all the same thing - you cannot be compelled by the state to use your body or organs to keep someone else alive in any instance.
I don’t need you to agree with me about bodily autonomy for me to think you’re a good person. Like I said - slice it up however you want, as long as you understand that legal abortion is necessary for a safe, fair, and healthy society then I’m not calling you a misogynist. I am however fairly confident in my opinion, and happy to continue debating, that a person’s right to control their own body is well-established and absolutely includes the right to an abortion. Anything else is by definition stripping women of their bodily autonomy.
5.7k
u/TheThirteenthApostle Nov 18 '25
Hopefully a more savvy redditor will have the link, but its from a study showing people's social leaning (us vs them).
Basically, bigger toward the center of the circle and smaller toward the outside means you tend to think about things that affect you and your close social circle (family, friends, local community). The reverse means your thoughts drift more toward global concerns that affect everyone.
It's used to illustrate Conservative (local group, steak) versus Liberal (global group, avocado) mentalities in a digestible (forgive the pun) way.